Section 4 of the VRA is gone, but the court ruled very narrowly, leaving section 5 in place, but until congress replaces section 4, section 5 is not going to be enforced.

In plain english, at this moment the preclearance requirement for southern states in congressional redistricting and changing election laws is gone until congress revises their formula. Back in the 60's, the formula they used to decide which states were so racist that they needed oversight may have made sense, but the formula is now badly out of date, and congress needs to take a close look at where, if anywhere, the preclearance requirement is still needed.

I agree with the substance of this decision, that piece of legislation is well out of date and should have been struck down. At the same time, I am uncomfortable with the fact that the court has essentially just overruled Congress on a factual matter, as opposed to a Constitutional matter. They are saying they understand the issue better than Congress did in 2006 and so their opinion should rule. I think it represents a bit of an overreach. It will be interesting to see if they apply the same logic on DOMA or if they somehow regain their deference.

__________________
Homer: [looking at watch] Two hours? Why'd they build this ghost town so far away?
Lisa: Because they discovered gold over there!
Homer: It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything.

But why even have them show up? I mean, we all know what the "wise latina woman" will think on every single issue, just let her stay home. Just put in her vote before the case is even started so we can save the charade and the pretense that she's actually deciding the merit of a case.

And this is different from the conservative wing, how? Ironically, you don't even realize that you're making an argument against judicial interpretation and/or the obsolescence of the SCOTUS in general.

I agree with the substance of this decision, that piece of legislation is well out of date and should have been struck down. At the same time, I am uncomfortable with the fact that the court has essentially just overruled Congress on a factual matter, as opposed to a Constitutional matter. They are saying they understand the issue better than Congress did in 2006 and so their opinion should rule. I think it represents a bit of an overreach. It will be interesting to see if they apply the same logic on DOMA or if they somehow regain their deference.

You have to remember that section 5, on its face, looks like a breathtakingly huge overreach by the feds to grab onto power that doesn't belong to them. It was only approved because the southern states were so ingeniously devious with their attempts to stop the black vote, that the SCOTUS basically said "we don't like it, but there's no other alternative".

We may be used to this law now, but its still something that probably shouldn't exist unless we really, really need it, and the Supreme Court finally couldn't keep rubber-stamping it given the progress made and what the south pretty much looks like today.

__________________ how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb? HOW MANY?! none they just sit in the dark and cry

You have to remember that section 5, on its face, looks like a breathtakingly huge overreach by the feds to grab onto power that doesn't belong to them. It was only approved because the southern states were so ingeniously devious with their attempts to stop the black vote, that the SCOTUS basically said "we don't like it, but there's no other alternative".

We may be used to this law now, but its still something that probably shouldn't exist unless we really, really need it, and the Supreme Court finally couldn't keep rubber-stamping it given the progress made and what the south pretty much looks like today.

Yes, the Constitution would allow the Federal govt to step in when there are shenanigans like this but only when such things are occurring.

You have to remember that section 5, on its face, looks like a breathtakingly huge overreach by the feds to grab onto power that doesn't belong to them. It was only approved because the southern states were so ingeniously devious with their attempts to stop the black vote, that the SCOTUS basically said "we don't like it, but there's no other alternative".

We may be used to this law now, but its still something that probably shouldn't exist unless we really, really need it, and the Supreme Court finally couldn't keep rubber-stamping it given the progress made and what the south pretty much looks like today.

Like I said, I agree the law is an overreach and I think its good that it has been overturned, but it still seems like the court is overstepping its bounds. The 15th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce it with "appropriate legislation." The court is now saying it isn't up to Congress to determine what's "appropriate", that that power lies with them. I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

__________________
Homer: [looking at watch] Two hours? Why'd they build this ghost town so far away?
Lisa: Because they discovered gold over there!
Homer: It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything.

If Holder comes out whining about a decision you know there is a 90% chance they got it right.

From last summer:

• The court overturned most of Arizona's hard-edged immigration law -- with two of the conservatives joining that opinion.

• The court ruled that states cannot impose mandatory life sentences without parole on juveniles -- with one of the conservatives joining in.

• The court struck down the Stolen Valor Act that outlawed false claims of military heroism -- with two conservatives on board.

• And finally, of course, the court upheld nearly all of Obamacare -- with one conservative justice helping out.

In one final-week opinion -- a reaffirmation, on an appeal from Montana, of 2010's controversial Citizens United ruling upholding the political speech rights of corporations -- the court's conservative wing held together.

But here's the curious thing. In none -- not one -- of these big final-week cases did a single "liberal" justice on the high court (Democratic appointees, all four) stray from the predictable liberal position

Like I said, I agree the law is an overreach and I think its good that it has been overturned, but it still seems like the court is overstepping its bounds. The 15th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce it with "appropriate legislation." The court is now saying it isn't up to Congress to determine what's "appropriate", that that power lies with them. I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

It still has to pass basic equal protection principles, the whole "rational basis, heightened/strict scrutiny" thing.

The section 4 formula is no longer rational. You can not discriminate between states "just because", there were 2 preclearance states (Alaska and some other state) that had never, ever had a successful section 2 lawsuit filed against them. There are many states and jurisdictions not under the formula that probably should be included way, way before many of the preclearance states. (assuming we are going to include any of them at all, I'm not convinced that section 5 is needed anywhere in the entire country in 2013)

Congress passed an unconstitutional law because of politics. Its easy to reauthorize the law, but its hard to redesign section 4. When congress ignores the constitution, and ignores direct warnings from the court, then the court eventually has to assert the constitution.

__________________ how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb? HOW MANY?! none they just sit in the dark and cry

As opposed to maps that are designed to maximize the black vote and minimize the white vote in states like Illinois?

Don't confuse simple partisan politics with racism.

Gerrymandering is gerrymandering where ever it happens. Texas's maps split Austin and San Antonio with explicit intentions of packing and diluting Hispanic votes. If the racists in the gop in Texas (note not all are racist) and acceped the compromise maps the the gop and dems had agreed to prior to their egregrious maps then the gop wouod have had much more favorable maps than they are going to get now. There is a large element of racism in the Texas redistricting fight. Pretending like their isn't is disengenuous.

__________________
The diameter of your knowledge is the circumference of your actions. Ras Kass

"Congress approached the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness. The same cannot be said of the Court's opinion today. The Court makes no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record that Congress assembled. Instead, it relies on increases in voter registration and turnout as if that were the whole story. See supra, at 18–19. Without even identifying a standard of review, the Court dismissively brushes off arguments based on "data from the record," and declines to enter the "debat[e about] what [the] record shows"…One would expect more from an opinion striking at the heart of the Nation's signal piece of civil-rights legislation."

"Given a record replete with examples of denial or abridgment of a paramount federal right, the Court should have left the matter where it belongs: in Congress’ bailiwick."

Ginsburg's dissent also rattled off these eight examples of race-based voter discrimination in recent history:

"In 1995, Mississippi sought to reenact a dual voter registration system, 'which was initially enacted in 1892 to disenfranchise Black voters,' and for that reason was struck down by a federal court in 1987."

"Following the 2000 Census, the City of Albany, Georgia, proposed a redistricting plan that DOJ found to be 'designed with the purpose to limit and retrogress the increased black voting strength…in the city as a whole.'"

"In 2001, the mayor and all-white five-member Board of Aldermen of Kilmichael, Mississippi, abruptly canceled the town's election after 'an unprecedented number' of AfricanAmerican candidates announced they were running for office. DOJ required an election, and the town elected its first black mayor and three black aldermen."

"In 2006, the court found that Texas' attempt to redraw a congressional district to reduce the strength of Latino voters bore 'the mark of intentional discrimination that could give rise to an equal protection violation,' and ordered the district redrawn in compliance with the VRA…In response, Texas sought to undermine this Court's order by curtailing early voting in the district, but was blocked by an action to enforce the §5 pre-clearance requirement."

"In 2003, after African-Americans won a majority of the seats on the school board for the first time in history, Charleston County, South Carolina, proposed an at-large voting mechanism for the board. The proposal, made without consulting any of the African-American members of the school board, was found to be an 'exact replica' of an earlier voting scheme that, a federal court had determined, violated the VRA…DOJ invoked §5 to block the proposal."

"In 1993, the City of Millen, Georgia, proposed to delay the election in a majority-black district by two years, leaving that district without representation on the city council while the neighboring majority white district would have three representatives…DOJ blocked the proposal. The county then sought to move a polling place from a predominantly black neighborhood in the city to an inaccessible location in a predominantly white neighborhood outside city limits."

"In 2004, Waller County, Texas, threatened to prosecute two black students after they announced their intention to run for office. The county then attempted to reduce the avail ability of early voting in that election at polling places near a historically black university."

"In 1990, Dallas County, Alabama, whose county seat is the City of Selma, sought to purge its voter rolls of many black voters. DOJ rejected the purge as discriminatory, noting that it would have disqualified many citizens from voting 'simply because they failed to pick up or return a voter update form, when there was no valid requirement that they do so.'"

__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock